CASE TITTLE: SVERA AGRO LIMITED V COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND GST, GST DELHI
CASE NO: W.P.(C) 11926/2023 & CM. APPLS. 46666/2023, 711/2024
ORDER ON: 29.02.2024
QUORUM: JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts leading to the present petition in question is that, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent to sanction the Refund claim of the petitioner for the period August 2020 to March, 2021. Petitioner further seeks withdrawal of the deficiency memos Issued by the respondent in response to the refund claim of the Petitioner for the period May, 2019 to July, 2019.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 talks about Refund of tax
Section 57 the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides for constitution of a Consumer Welfare Fund
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER:
The petitioner through their counsel submits that the refund Application was being rejected by issuing deficiency memos requiring The petitioner to furnish a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant in terms of Rule 89 (2)(l) (m) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
The Learned counsel for respondent submits that the Circular No.125/44/2019 dated 18.11.2019 requires the assessee seeking refund Of unutilized Input Tax Credit to furnish a self-declaration under Rule 89(2)(l) if the amount claimed is less than Rs.2 lakh, otherwise furnish A certificate as required under Rule 89(2)(m).
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The court on considering the facts and contentions of the counsel opined that Section 57 provides for constitution of a Consumer Welfare Fund. The amount accumulated in the Fund is to be utilized in terms of Section 58 for welfare of consumer. Section 54 sub-section (8) stipulates that notwithstanding Anything contained in sub-section (5), the refundable amount instead Of being credited to the Fund is to be paid to the applicant if such Amount is relatable inter-alia to refund of unutilized Input Tax Credit Under sub-section (3).the court further contented that the deficiency memos issued To the petitioner, requiring the petitioner to furnish a certificate of the Chartered Accountant are not sustainable.hence the court accordingly set Aside. We are informed that pending these proceedings the court further contended that Since part of the amount was denied on account of deficiency Memos, which we have not found to be sustainable in view of the Proviso to Rule 89 (2) (l)(m), the court further holds that petitioner is entitled to Interest on the delayed refund in terms of Section 56 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 at the rate notified by the Government within a period of four weeks from today. the court further noticed that the submission of learned counsel For the petitioner that the online portal of the respondent Was not accepting the refund applications and this Court had permitted The petitioner to file the refund applications for period August, 2019, October, 2019 and December, 2019, physically. As per the petitioner, in view of pendency of the present Petition, further claims could not be lodged. Accordingly, on petitioner Filing such refund applications, the Department shall not reject the Same solely on the ground of limitation.the court accordingly disposed of the petition in above terms.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by:Sowmya.R
